Industry spotlight

Findings
The selection of DHTs must align with the specific goals of the trial, focusing on unmet patient or scientific needs.
A specification-driven approach, rather than solely relying on a technology’s regulatory status, ensures alignment with trial requirements.
Verification and validation are distinct processes; both are critical to confirm the reliability and clinical relevance of DHTs.
Pre-trial feasibility studies help identify potential issues, such as wear-time compliance or usability concerns, before full implementation.
DHTs can alter participant interactions and trial workflows, necessitating clear communication, training, and management plans.

Recommendations
Define Measurement Goals Before Selection: Ensure that the decision to use a DHT is based on unmet needs or the promise of reducing trial burdens.
Adopt a Specification-Driven Selection Process: Tailor DHT selection to technical performance, participant needs, and study-specific requirements.
Verify and Validate Technologies Thoroughly: Collaborate with manufacturers to ensure DHTs are tested in both controlled and real-world settings and validated for the target population.
Conduct Feasibility Studies: Test DHTs for tolerability, usability, and compliance within the specific trial context to identify and address issues early.
Prepare for Operational Challenges: Develop a robust management plan with standard operating procedures (SOPs) to address potential failures and ensure smooth implementation.

Regulatory Considerations
The regulatory status of a DHT should not solely drive its selection; instead, focus on its ability to meet trial specifications.
Ensure transparent collaboration with manufacturers to document DHT performance characteristics and limitations.
Validate endpoints and DHT data to align with evidentiary standards for regulatory submissions.
Use feasibility studies and SOPs to ensure that DHTs comply with regulatory and operational requirements during trials.

Findings
Traditional on-site monitoring, which often involves 100% source data verification, is not the most effective way to ensure data quality and can divert resources from more critical activities. A risk-based approach allows for the early identification of potential issues, enabling proactive risk mitigation and improved trial oversight. The successful implementation of RBM requires a cultural shift within organizations, moving from a reactive to a proactive mindset. Collaboration among sponsors, CROs, and sites is essential for the effective adoption of RBM methodologies.

Recommendations
Sponsors should adopt a systematic, risk-based approach to monitoring that is tailored to the specific risks of their clinical trial. This includes conducting a thorough risk assessment during the planning phase to identify critical data and processes. The use of centralized monitoring and advanced analytics should be a core component of any RBM strategy to detect unusual patterns or trends in the data. Training for all stakeholders, including site staff and monitors, is crucial for the successful implementation of RBM.

Regulatory Considerations
Global regulatory agencies, including the FDA, EMA, and Japan’s PMDA, have issued guidance that supports and encourages the use of risk-based approaches to monitoring clinical trials. Regulatory submissions should include a description of the RBM methodology used in the trial and a justification for the approach taken. The adoption of RBM is consistent with Good Clinical Practice (GCP) principles, which emphasize a focus on patient safety and data quality.